Career Murder : A dangerous precedence

Selfish motivations

A bloodless murder has been committed, and I felt no guilt

It appeared that in the process of protecting my own interest, I have played a major role in committing a career murder. By exposing Malar and providing evidence to prove that she is an incompetent lecturer, she had lost her lecturer role in both BIS1 and BIS2. This will effectively kill her chances of getting a job at APMI Kaplan again, or maybe even worse, the whole of Singapore. I will term this as the Malar Incident.

So what exactly is my interest in this matter? To put it simply, I want to get what I had paid for. I bought and paid for a quality university education and I will not settle for anything less. I am working very hard to pay for my degree and I expect APMI Kaplan and Murdoch to deliver their product.

I admit that I had practically driven and orchestrated the whole chain of events to achieve my goal, for I perceived Malar as a threat to my future. By doing so, I have surely burnt a lot of bridges and got myself highly ranked in Murdoch and APMI Kaplan's trouble maker list.

Burning desires

The road to success is paved with the skulls of my victims

My motivation for getting a quality degree is driven by my desire to advance my career to higher levels. I have allocated and spent time, money and effort investing in my university education in order to achieve this. It will be my own fault should I neglect my own parts in my studies but it is a different story if APMI Kaplan or Murdoch fouls up.

In this case, if I had allowed Malar to get away with this, the percussions will be great indeed. Despite paying full attention in every lecture, I will score badly in the examination and ruin my results. Murdoch will not compensate me for this. APMI Kaplan will not admit their negligence and will let things slide. The biggest loser will therefore be me if I choose to maintain my silence.

If my results suffered as a direct result of Malar’s incompetency, it will be reflected in my results forever. I will suffer great losses in the future financially and in my career. I cannot imagine the loss of opportunities that would have occurred, If the Malar Incident cause a delay in my graduation, I will not be able to qualify for a higher pay bracket which I am waiting for. Will I be able to sue Malar for liquidated damage for loss of future income ?

After giving Malar a few chances to redeem herself, all Malar did was to manage to squander every bit of faith and patience that I have. I knew I had to do something to put a stop to her nonsense. Malar will be the biggest loser of all. I promised myself that. Malar should have considered herself lucky and thanks her lucky stars for I did not blow up and give her a good dressing down for her failures.

What you pay for is what you get

Hanging a goat's head and selling dog meat sucks

From my point of view, I will regard APMI Kaplan as an educational service provider, Murdoch BIS course as the product and Malar as the service delivery medium. My expectation is simple. APMI Kaplan works out the administrative stuff, Murdoch gives use quality material and Malar to add value to the subject.

Since I have paid for instructor-led lectures, I do expect something more than a walking acrobat reader. The lecturer should have a good grip of the subject, and able to answer my questions. Yes, I did encounter boring lecturers who could not impact their knowledge to me effectively due to teaching styles but all of them had the required knowledge to teach in the subject. With the exception of Malar, all the lecturers I had studied under so far knew what was needed to get me to understand the subject and pass my examinations. Unfortunately, Malar obviously failed to comprehend the subject, and did not sufficiently prepare for the lectures. There was no knowledge to impart and the corruption in her knowledge is so blindingly obvious.

The price that we pay

There is no right or wrong, it's a matter of perception.

However, this does come with a heavy price for everyone entangled in this mess. Removing a lecturer in the midst of a running course is a very drastic thing to do and should only be done when the class has no faith in the lecturer ability to perform the job. From trimester 1 and 2, I know very well that Murdoch had set a high standard for the BIS course and the sudden drop in standards really stands out like a sore thumb.Whether the results justified the means is really hard to tell at this point in time, but somebody have to do the dirty job and bring out the trash right?

The Aftermath

Blowing things up is easy, cleaning up is hard

After a month since trimester 3 commenced, it has been a hell of a ride for the Software Architecture module. On 9th June, good news was delivered in the afternoon when Carol announced in the latest BIS newsletter that Malar had been replaced by Dr Loo for the subject. The dark shroud that hanged over our cohort had been lifted and we were happy that APMI Kaplan and Murdoch had acted promptly and gave us the best outcome possible in the Malar Incident.

I believe the Malar Incident should have caused plenty of unhappiness between Murdoch and APMI Kaplan. It's quite unbelievable that a seemingly experienced lecturer could have caused so many problems, but it will be useless to point fingers now. On the positive side, APMI Kaplan will hopefully start scrutinize their new lecturers closely from now on to prevent the Malar Incident from reoccurring.

Chronicle of events

Testing something new may cause complications beyond your wildest dream

• May 11 : Software Architecture lesson 1. Malar failed to cover topic 1.

• May 13 : Software Architecture lesson 2. Malar failed to cover topic 1 and 2. Course content becomes available over LMS, and it was discovered that Malar had not taught according to course content.
• May 19 : Complaint lodged against Malar for failing to teach according to course content. Mr Danny promptly got Malar to cover topic 1 and 2 in lesson 3.
• May 20 : Software Architecture lesson 3. Malar covered topic 1 and 2.
• June 3 : Software Architecture lesson 4. Malar failed to cover topic 3 and deviated from course content again.
• June 5 : Complaint lodged against Malar for outright incompetency in the subject.
• June 6 : Exchanged emails with Mr Danny to prove our case.
• June 9 : Malar has been replaced by Dr Loo.
• June 10: Lesson 5 is canceled as Dr Loo needs to prepare material.
  
  
• June 12 : Malar was dropped from BIS2 as well.
  

Not attending classes is actually better

[Edited on 5th June 2008, 11pm for clarity]

Never in my life, I felt like killing somebody really badly

On the topic of impressive lecturers, there is another lecturer who have left a deep impression on me. Never in my life do I have to describe a lecturer as grossly incompetent in the subject that she is teaching us, ICT306 Software Architecture.

After 4 lessons with Malar, I can only say that it has been a painful waste of time attending her lessons so far. On average, it cost me $180 per lesson and that means I have already wasted $720 on 4 sub-standard lectures. That is excluding personal expenses such as transport and meals. Multiply that with the number of students attending her classes and that should give you an idea how much we should sue her for liquidated damage.

Of course I agree that these are very dreadful things to say but I can justify my position on this by going through what happened during her first 4 lectures.

Lesson 1 and 2

• Did not teach topic 1 or 2 of the course material, instead Malar taught the basics of programming using java. Despite that the subject is suppose to be Software Architecture, there is no hint that what she taught had any resemblance to the subject.
  
  
• Did not install IDE or Java SDK, instead Malar opted to use notepad and manually compile in her head with terrible results, rejecting our offer to use one of our properly configured personnel laptop. She is no star material and her codes are not compilable.
  
  
• Did not have the official lecture slides, and did not inform us that she was teaching non-related material. I was very angry when I downloaded the official lecture notes and discovered that she had taught unrelated material to us, all because that did not perform due diligence in preparing for the lecture before hand, deceived us and did not even bother to apologise for her blunder !
  

Lesson 3

• I had logged a complaint to Murdoch regarding lesson 1 and 2 and to run 2 more lessons so that we can cover topic 1 and 2 with the course material. However, Malar went through topic 1 and 2 instead of topic 1 according to the course schedule as promised by Murdoch. We had to endure and pay for her mistake by taking 2 topics in 1 lesson. Even so, we are still 1 lesson behind official schedule.
  
  
• Still refused to install IDE or Java SDK, instead she continue to use notepad. She played smart and no longer used her own codes. Instead, she used examples from the text book.
  

Lesson 4

• Went through topic 3 instead of topic 4 according to the original course schedule. We are still 1 lesson behind the initial schedule and there is no word from APMI Kaplan on how we should be compensated for the loss of 1 lesson and the impact on our assignments and examination.
  
  
• The IDE or Java SDK are still MIA, and we now understand that notepad is her best friend. Obviously, an IDE or Java SDK is impossible to be installed on her computer, instead she used her all-time favorite notepad and manually compile in her head with "Titanic" results.

Notepad is Malar's favorite Java code editor despite the absence of colour highlighting, ability to compile codes and proper formatting of text. Our poor eyes suffered in silence,

After 4 weeks from the start of the trimester, I found it difficult to understand why she continued to use notepad and not an IDE because she refused to put in effort to install the IDE and Java SDK on her computer before the lesson. Obviously, she got a problem preparing for her lessons. Why is this a big deal ? Since you cannot execute the Java programs from notepad, there is no way to find out if her codes work right away. Instead, we had to replicate her codes on our personal laptops to play detective (her codes usually fails to compile 1/2 the time). When she opens up files containing coding examples from the textbook, due to notepad's less than perfect handling of line breaks, we will just see a mess of codes on the screens due to misalignment.

Lesson 4 was also the most memorable lesson of all. We spotted 6 errors in her lecture with the first hour of her lecture ! Her lack of knowledge in Java really shows all too clearly. I can tell that she had a weak foundation in both the theory and programming aspect of Java, and she is only reading from the slides like what the acrobat reader does without understanding the material. Because of this, not only that she is unable to add value to the lectures, she actually REDUCES value to the lecture due to her errors !!! This is outrageous and horrible !!!

So during the first hour of lesson 4, I made a record of her mistakes in her lecture.

Giving Malar a chance to redeem her mistakes in lecture 1 and 2 proved to be very costly indeed. Instead of losing 2 lectures, we have increased our losses and lost a grand total of 4 lectures, which is 40% of the time that was allocated to the subject.

Mistake 1 :

Malar : Java stores a short integer using 4-bits
Me : (After googling) It's 16 bits.
Proof = Wikipedia - Integer.

Mistake 2 :

Malar : What is objects ? It is nothing but variables in C !
Me : Variables ??? It's more like a structure !
Proof = The relationship between C Structures and Java Classes

Mistake 3 :

Code snipplet :

public String getCourseName() <-- What is this method expecting ? OMFG !?!
{
return courseName;
}

Malar : This method is expecting an argument. What is it?
T : (stunned look) None ?
Malar : Oh oh... (points to another method with a valid argument)
Proof = This is a no-brainer. No proof provided

Mistake 4 :

Malar : A class can have many constructor, with different names, and does not have be the same as the class name.
Me & T : There can be many constructors, but the names must be the same as the class name and the input arguments can vary. It's call overloading.
Proof = Java Constructors

Mistake 5 :

Malar : Class, compile this and tell me the result. (Using an abstract class example)
T : (Did not bother to type out the codes) You cannot do that. It's an abstract class. Nothing is defined and there is no main function.
Malar : Oh ...
Proof = Abstract class | Interface

Mistake 6 :

Me : (Points to slide 37 of topic 3, UML diagram) Why is there 2 arrows joining 2 objects in an UML diagram ? There should only be one relationship between 2 objects !
Malar : There is no rule saying that there cannot be more than 1 arrow joining 2 objects.
Me : WTF ?? 2 objects should only be associated with 1 relationship ! The arrow is actually an annotation, which is explained on the next slide (slide 38). Clearly, she never read the material.

On top of this, she made a lousy and confusing example which actually doesn't make any sense to show us that Java assigns a NULL value to a integer when a variable is declared. She simply displayed the output of a method twice and happily claimed that that it shows that a NULL value has been assigned.

Her explanation for inheritance in classes was made ... without the use of the keyword, inheritance. This is in line with her style of explaining the creation of instances of objects without using the keyword, instances (it was also explained wrongly anyway).

After the first half of the lesson, after our 1/2 time break, she did not make any more mistakes because she stopped trying to "add value" to the lesson. That is probably because of the way that T and I have questioned her grip on the subject. Instead read from the textbook and pseudo codes instead. Pseudo codes is not covered in topic 3, and I was wondering if she was teaching unrelated things to us again.

The only question in 2007 examination paper asking for Java codes is Question 2(b), which is worth a godly 5 marks ! Distinction question !

And guess what? Not only there is no pseudo codes in the past year examinations, there is no coding requirement in the papers at all !!! It's pure theory !!! Malar had been teaching the subject as if it is a programming subject, but it's a theory subject. I can tell you, whatever she had taught us is of no relevant to the examinations !!!!!!!!!!!! Unless you tell me that the 4 sample past year examination papers available the school website is a joke, and 2008's paper will be totally revamped, we are dead meat. We had been chasing after the wrong things from day 1 !!!!!! I knew it when I find very little emphasis on software architecture in her lectures.

For the non-IT people out there, imagine this .... it's like teaching us how to DRIVE A CAR when the subject is "Singapore's transport system architecture" using a driving textbook.

After 4 lessons of learning to drive a car, then I realised that not only most of the lectures taken were irrelevant. I got no freaking idea what the architecture is about ! Then the driving textbook is suppose to be used to show the DRIVING RULES in Singapore, not to teach us how to drive !

Then the final examinations is not a practical driving test. It's an advance theory examination !!!

At this rate, BIS1 is going to fail ICT306 Software Architecture !!!
The whole subject had been taught wrongly !!!
The focus is wrong from the beginning !!!
This is not a Java programming subject !!!
This is a pure theory subject !!!

By the way, can you imagine a student being able to spot errors from a lecturer? Isn't it suppose to be the other way round? Is she even qualified to teach us? If a lecturer is unable to add value, and actually reduces value, why even bother to attend her lessons? It will only taint our knowledge on the subject ! Did she even read what is supposed to be covered in the exams? Why is she spending so much time on programming when it's a theory subject ? She did not prepare her lectures. She do not know the topic. She taught the wrong things. She misleaded us.

I regret to say this, but to be frank, i am seriously casting doubts of Malar's credibility and ability. If this continues any longer, it's either BIS1 retake ICT306 Software Architecture or we will get terrible results because of Malar.

And to this date, because of Malar, we had to squeeze topic 1 and 2 into 1 lesson. And don't forget we are still 1 lesson behind schedule too. Murdoch and APMI Kaplan went silent on how to compensate us for this, be it scheduling of additional lessons or the dates of assignment submission and exams.

I have been writing this blog entry for 2 hours, and my blood is boiling hotter and hotter as I continue. For my own sake, I am stopping here and let the flames begin.

Edit: One of our fellow coursemate turned up more dirt on Malar from informatics website.

Vaithilingam Malarkodi

Academic credentials:
Qualification: Bachelor of Engineering (Telecom) - graduated in 1993, Bangalore University of India. Additional certification: - Diploma in Computer Applications, TAD Computer Point, India.

Working Experience: In the teaching line since 1996. Before joining ICS, w worked in secondary schools to teach computer applications. Currently teaching DCS and DIT maincontents. Unit leader for DIT 203, ADIT403 and ICT 108.

University of Bangalore, India

If this is really her, she is certainly not a degree grade lecturer. This is a massive downgrade from our dear Dr Loo. I cannot take this shit anymore. Seriously.

On the bright side, Carol has become our program manager. Now at APMI Kaplan, we have actually reached the end of the escalation process because there is no one else to go to if she does not respond to us. She was suppose to be the last person but let's hope things turn out well. With our history of conflicts and problems with APMI Kaplan, it will not long before we have to seek Carol's improvement before we start telling everyone we know that APMI Kaplan sucks.

Oh, probably after Carol saw the pictures of the "World Class Facilities" at YMCA in one of my recent blog articles, Carol arranged us to use their office's meeting room for Tuesday's lesson instead of dumping us at YMCA because of a shortage of classrooms.

I do feel a little guilty because the poor receptionist had to stay till 9pm because of us to do guard duty, but at least she got her boyfriend to help her kill time while we got Malar to entertain us.